If atheists want to argue we can “do good without gods” we need to cultivate and demonstrate our moral, ethical, and social literacy, not just our scientific facts. We can begin by trying to reconcile various conflicts between atheists and other groups (such as feminists, minorities, or ideologies) with whom we might be natural allies if those conflicts were understood and resolved.

1. Resolving conflicts between atheism and feminism

Atheism and feminism both have variants, some of which have developed conflicts. These conflicts may be most notable in the case of New Atheists (NA) and Third-Wave Feminists (3WF). NA is sometimes characterized as the “militant” arm of atheism. [1] 3WF “contains internal debates between difference feminists, who believe that there are important differences between the sexes, and those who believe that there are no inherent differences between the sexes and contend that gender roles are due to social conditioning.” [2]

Steven Pinker differentiates two branches of feminism as equity feminism and gender feminism. “Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology.” [3]

…

I’d like to see, but haven’t yet found, research that compares rates of sexism and other kinds of bigotry among atheists to that in the general public. It would be interesting to see comparisons on other social and ethical issues as well. However, empirical facts and rational analysis don’t justify patronizing, condescension, insults, discrimination, bigotry, male chauvinism and other displays of social illiteracy.

I haven’t found any statistics on rates of bigotry among atheists compared with the general public, but I did find a wide variety of articles discussing sexism and racism among atheists in general and Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Shermer in particular. While I was originally skeptical or agnostic on the issue, I quickly learned something that clued me in, I think, to a broader point of view:

“But it’s not just women who are underrepresented at conventions, it’s also people of color. Would Harris suggest that black and Hispanic men, too, have a “nurturing, coherence-building, extra estrogen vibe” that makes the angry tone of Harris’s atheist activism off-putting? Presumably not. Presumably Harris understands that there are a variety of reasons for the underrepresentation of people of color, including both casual racism in the organized atheist community and cultural specifics in the wider society, none of which have anything to do with any sort of underlying psychological differences. And yet, when it comes to the underrepresentation of women in organized atheism Harris chooses not to consider either casual sexism in the organized atheist community or the cultural landscape women live their lives against. Instead, he jumps straight to presumed psychological differences between men and women.”http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/is-sam-harris-sexist.html

I took that as a kind of social (as opposed to scientific) illiteracy or lack of enlightenment on Harris’ part that I had not caught on to previously, probably because I have a similar bias.

Harris was asked why there were more men in his audience than women and he went right to biological and psychological explanations and ignored social- cultural explanations. He doubled down on that approach in his “Not the sexist pig” defense, and added a strong dose of condescension about putting women on pedestals. As the “Is Sam Harris Sexist” article points out, both those things are sexist and Harris doesn’t seem to understand that.

I started a conversation in The Sam Harris Experiment group which apparently got me expelled from the group. I posted links to some articles and made some comments such as:

Does the atheist community have a problem with sexism? This article argues that it does, both in the ranks and at the level of major public intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. IMO there’s evidence of such a problem, but it may also be exaggerated in some quarters. Is it a case of rampant, over the top misogyny throughout the atheist community? Are atheists more sexist than the general public, less sexist, or about the same? As this article suggests we might expect a lot of common ground between atheists and feminists. If something is disturbing this natural alliance, what is it? Is the same old war between the sexes raising it’s ugly head here? There’s a problem for sure, and I’d like to see my fellow atheists step up to solve it with a minimum of denial and defensiveness.

Biology is one thing, equity is another. Scientific theories about sex differences are one thing, social intelligence is another. Could Harris use a little more of the latter?

It isn’t that biological sex characteristics are irrelevant, but that they are not AS relevant to the issue in question, inclusion and participation, as the social-cultural inequities. It seems that too many atheists, including Harris, are insensitive to or even clueless about this, at least in regard to sex. Placing the emphasis on biological and psychological differences just begs the question about what that should imply with respect to roles– separation and specialization, or affirmative action to achieve inclusion and diversity.

Dawkins may think he’s being “the most rational man alive” when he says that not all pedophilia or all rape are the same. That is true in a technical sense, but it ignores the fact that society has adopted a zero tolerance policy for all behavior meeting the legal definition of pedophilia or rape. Criminal sentences rightly vary according to severity and other factors, but Dawkins remark angers those fighting for justice where it has often been wanting on those issues.

I side with nearly all Dawkins’ science, but the man is a social dinosaur. He did eventually apologise for the Dear Muslima letters and say he was a feminist and everybody should be one, before he lapsed back into gender dementia on twitter and in interviews.

FB friend: “the author cannot explain WHY IT IS A DISCRACE or WHY we should all be offended and on the side of the complaining woman who is disgusted by a stranger’s verbal proposition.”

Me: We should not all be (and most of us aren’t) offended by Dawkins’ behavior in the elevator, even if the woman felt creeped out. We ARE all offended by the Muslima letters you admire so much and by his pattern of behavior over many years. He chose the easiest accusation to defend himself against and managed to turn the defense into a disgusting display of male chauvinism.

FB friend: ” The answer is, of course: “the female victim is always right, even if no objective evidence was presented.”

Me: Neither you nor Dawkins can get away with using his slightest offense as a proxy for all the others.

What if the historical trend towards monotheism were principally reinforced by its utility as a pretext for authoritarianism?

The animism and polytheism (or pantheism) of early humanity did not preclude the appropriation of religious motifs and beliefs by sociopolitical institutions or hierarchies, but they may have made it more difficult for such hierarchies to grow into permanent monopolies of orthodox dogma.

Perhaps ideology is a stage in the development of authoritarian culture analogous to monotheistic theologies. Each “brand” of theology and ideology rolls up and obscures a pantheon of diverse ideas. Converts don’t need to drill down very deeply.

Ironically, the growing influence of science on society may contribute to a popular misconception of scientific or academic certainty that can be exploited to forge even tighter monopolies on culture and thought. The evil twin of science, pseudo science or “scientism,” is seductive to many.

Theology, ideology, and scientism lend themselves equally to the agenda of authoritarianism. The real war for the hearts and minds of humanity is not between the Right and the Left, or any of their many academic, theological or ideological proxies. The real war that underlies everything else is between orthodoxy and pluralism. Conformity and conflict are two sides of one coin. We need forms of civic equality and conviviality that are not based on uniformity.

Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion

Alain de Botton is a philosopher with some very constructive suggestions for improving secular society by selectively plucking useful heirlooms from the traditions, practices and organizations of religion while leaving the rest. He surveys the cultural and social capital of three major religions– Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism– and suggests some assets worth salvaging.

(credit: Wikipedia)

Botton isn’t asking atheists and agnostics to kiss and make up with religion. He is a non-believer. He may not be the confrontational type, but he’s no double agent with a secret religious agenda, as some atheists might fear. His mission is to initiate a humanistic renaissance in secular society that will bring us up to speed in some areas where religions may have superior social and cultural know-how.

“The starting point of all religions is that humans are weak and vulnerable and needing direction, but as I look at secular society, I see how we’ve been abandoned to make our own way through life and how challenging that is.”

“Religion has a lot to say about how to live and love, caring for others, handling suffering, dealing with death and all the other universal experiences that make us human.”

“The error of modern atheism has been to overlook how many aspects of the faiths remain relevant even after their central tenets have been dismissed.”

– – – –

Religion for Atheists suggests that rather than mocking religion, agnostics and atheists should instead steal from it—because the world’s religions are packed with good ideas on how we might live and arrange our societies.(Amazon.com)

“It is when we stop believing that religions have been handed down from above or else that they are entirely daft that matters become more interesting. We can then recognize that we invented religions to serve two central needs which continue to this day and which secular society has not been able to solve with any particular skill: firstly, the need to live together in communities in harmony, despite our deeply rooted selfish and violent impulses. And secondly, the need to cope with terrifying degrees of pain which arise from our vulnerability to professional failure, to troubled relationships, to the death of loved ones and to our decay and demise.”

Note: I have not read the book (so it could be awesome or awful), but based on the interviews and articles below, I like this guy. I think he is measured, pragmatic, and non-polemical; and he has one of the most constructive arguments I’ve heard in a very long time. It strikes me that the approach taken by Botton could go a long way towards ratcheting down the hostility between atheists, agnostics, and our superstitious brothers and sisters :). It is the kind of thing that might be a useful balm for folks in the Occupy and 99% movements who struggle to maintain solidarity with each other despite differences that are sometimes deeply rooted.